Sickest loss

[SBR Lou]

More often than not, when they correct a call on the field after further discussion, it is usually not something that couldn't otherwise be reviewed. That's why so much emphasis is placed on the calls they're SUPPOSED to get right, because 9/10 they are never reversed and you've already been provided with examples of that.

[Dark Horse]

A few months ago:

http://forum.sbrforum.com/college-football-handicapping/40943-strange-event-during-uva-vs-unc-game-last-saturday.html?highlight=FG+bounce

[ShamsWoof10]

because 9/10 they are never reversed.

So 1 time out of 10 they are reversed... This was one of them... Usually 1 out of 10 times is usually a play that is not unsual or at least not one like this that has never happened... I don't know what you guys are not getting... It's in the rule book that they can discuss it but not use instant replay but you both want to rewrite the rule book or if you're DH use the college one...

How is this so difficult... Something that has never happen all of a sudden happens and the refs. were not even sure at first... They had to make some call and did but then had a conference and talked about it (like that's never happen before) and probably checked the rule book since they probably didn't know themselves and corrected it...

Good god what part of this don't you understand.???

[Sportsgirl]

Agreed Shams.

There were two officials under the goal post; one called it good (correctly) and one call the kick bad. What else could the officials do but gather around a talk about it? They had to decide which official under the goal post was right. AT no time did I see any official looking at film of this. They had two opinions, they talked over the rules and they made the correct ruling. Period.

Besides, both Cleveland and Baltimore suck anyway, so what difference does it make?

[ShamsWoof10]

Without suckin' on Google's d*ck can anyone tell me what a free kick is in football..? Yeah football not soccer...

Incase this ever happens, which I doubt it will anytime soon, a free kick is when a punt returner calls for a fair catch and the recieving team elects to take a free kick... This means the kicker and holder go on the field with no rush (as a matter of fact I don't think the rest of the team even line up) and the kicker tries a field goal from the point the fair catch was made... If the fair catch (and it has to be a fair catch) is made outside the hashes the ball will be spotted on the closest hash mark... This would normally be attempted near the very end of a half or game....

The last time I saw this attempted was in a pre season game with Dallas and Houston in 1987... Rafiel Septian tried a 50some yarder and I think he missed...

The only thing is I don't know if this only applies to punt returners or both punt and kick returners... If I had to guess I would say both....

[Willie Bee]

I do sort of remember that free kick by Septien myself, Shams, but I thought it was earlier than 1987. Either way, I could tell you some stories about Septien and his little perversions, but let's just leave it at, "He was a real mama's boy."

[ShamsWoof10]

I do sort of remember that free kick by Septien myself, Shams, but I thought it was earlier than 1987. Either way, I could tell you some stories about Septien and his little perversions, but let's just leave it at, "He was a real mama's boy."

I knew Willie Bee wouldn't let me down! "Sorta remember that" is good enough for me... Yes it was in Aug. 1987... It was the first year ESPN started doing games and I believe this was on ESPN... Anyway I do remember hearing things about Rafiel and some 10 year old boy or something like that... I think that is why he dropped out of the NFL so quickly because he was as solid as a Matt Stover...

[Sportsgirl]

Shamswoof I hear your point, but technically it is still wrong to reverse the call here. There is no system set in place to make this type of reversal, if a play cannot be reviewed, once the official signals the play/game is over and players start leaving the field, you shouldn't be allowed to "discuss it more" and reverse the nonreviewable play.

Its just inconsistent to go picking and choosing when you're allowed to further discuss something to make the right call if its non reviewable. Obviously this had to do with the game's outcome, but still there's no official precedent to stand on.

Someone made the point about the inadvertent whistle, or how about when San Diego was at the goal line of the Bears, and a defender CLEARLY jumped offsides even before the ball was snapped, and then a SD player fumbled and the fans/players went fn crazy. The replay was right on the screen and the refs argued with the coach for 5 mins about how they knew they screwed up and couldn't review/reverse it, WHY was that not allowed to be 'further discussed'?

there is no "reversal of call" in this case. One official said it wasn't good, one official made a "no call" on the play. there are two officials under goal for a reason. If official No. 2 had a "no call" then his understanding of the rules of what happens when the ball hits the goal post the way it did were in question and he was correct in stopping himself from making a ruling due to his lack of understanding. Official No. 1 made an incorrect ruling likely based on his lack of knowledge of the rule book. However, if there are two officials under goal and they both do not come up with the same ruling, then there needs to be discussion - why else would ther be 2 officials under goal? there was discussion in this case and the outcome was correct. If both officials under goal had come up with the same dicision on the kick, regardless of whether it was correct or not, then there would be no need for discussion and the game would have been over. Fortunely for the Browns, at least one of the two officials was on the ball enough to at least make a "no call" instead of a wrong call, thus resulting in the discussion and ultimately the correct call - which is what really matters.

[pico]

Pretty good day (57%), but still recorded my sickest loss ever.

Kind of funny, because this exact topic had come up here earlier this year. A FG attempt bouncing off the inside post against another post and back into the field.

I had BAL +2.5. The game was over. The players were in the locker room. A FG is not reviewable. And yet those !@%!$%!@$%!$^%#$%$!#$!#$%$@ zebras managed to reverse the call on the field.

i know that was a crazy game, but i had to ask. why would anyone take +2.5 line? i would either take ml or +3 or +3.5 ... +2.5 does not really make any sense to me.

[Dark Horse]

The price I got at Matchbook on Sunday morning was more attractive than the ML or buying a half pt (not really possible at the time, with line closing at 1.5).


Note to self. Never open another thread about a bad loss - on this forum.

[Crutch]

that would suck pretty bad man

[Dark Horse]

Thanks.

I often said that the worst losses are the games that were won. But I never realized this could apply to a game that was over.

[ShamsWoof10]

there is no "reversal of call" in this case. One official said it wasn't good, one official made a "no call" on the play. there are two officials under goal for a reason. If official No. 2 had a "no call" then his understanding of the rules of what happens when the ball hits the goal post the way it did were in question and he was correct in stopping himself from making a ruling due to his lack of understanding. Official No. 1 made an incorrect ruling likely based on his lack of knowledge of the rule book. However, if there are two officials under goal and they both do not come up with the same ruling, then there needs to be discussion - why else would ther be 2 officials under goal? there was discussion in this case and the outcome was correct. If both officials under goal had come up with the same dicision on the kick, regardless of whether it was correct or not, then there would be no need for discussion and the game would have been over. Fortunely for the Browns, at least one of the two officials was on the ball enough to at least make a "no call" instead of a wrong call, thus resulting in the discussion and ultimately the correct call - which is what really matters.

This is very very good!!!

[Sportsgirl]

Thanks

[Dark Horse]

Very good, but wrong.

[Sportsgirl]

Very good, but wrong.

How so?

[Dark Horse]

Because one signaled 'no good', and the other signaled nothing (he did not signal 'good'). So one had made his decision, and the other hadn't.

I don't think you need both referees for a decision to stand. One is enough. We see this all the time with TD's, where one referee raises his arms and the other is -at first- undecided.

This leaves us with the amazing situation where the one who had made his decision was talked out of it by the one who hadn't. And one can only imagine the cosmic magnitude of the debate, which took a near eternity. Supposedly without a reviewal.

If, as many suspect, a reviewal was used, the decision by definition went against NFL rules.


I believe that NFL.com had initially graded the game as a win for Baltimore. This is rather interesting from a betting perspective. Sportsbooks typically go by NFL.com and NBA.com. results. And sportsbook rules also mention, in many cases, that decisions can't be reversed.

[ShamsWoof10]

Because one signaled 'no good', and the other signaled nothing (he did not signal 'good'). So one had made his decision, and the other hadn't.

I don't think you need both referees for a decision to stand. One is enough. We see this all the time with TD's, where one referee raises his arms and the other is -at first- undecided. .

You don't "THINK"..? My guess is this is not an opinion.. You either do or you don't...

What does the rule book say..?

By the way doesn't the referee (head offical) have to CONFIRM the field goal by calling it good too...? That is ALWAYS the last person I see signaling a field goal good/no good AFTER the other two have done so...

Can you also please answer my question which was "if we saw the ball hit off the upright and then off the goose neck before gong back into the endzone" what is their to review..?